Messages in this thread | | | From | danielt@digi ... | Date | Fri, 8 Oct 1999 09:56:14 -0500 (CDT) | Subject | Re: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device a lloc ation) ) |
| |
On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > > On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Nathan Hand wrote: > > > - UNIX-like /dev without UNIX-like rw fs (good for embedding on romfs) > Point taken, but without rw filesystem you are going to have a > nasty time with _many_ other things, including the persistency in devfs > itself. > If you do not have a rw filesystem you hard-code your permissions anyway. This sort of system does not resemble your workstation.
> > > Also: It is extra code, has to be maintained and updated, and has to be > > > accounted for in new driver developments. It _will_ add new bugs, even new > > > classes of bugs. This doesn't come for free. > > > > Well, perhaps all kernel developers should stop coding right now: you have > > equally well argued against all new features and drivers. > > So all coding goes into new features and to hell with cleaning the mess > up, right? Damn, I understand Theo. Features are nice _iff_ you have a > half-decent implementation. Featuritis for its own sake leads to mosters > a-la NT and EMACS. Sheesh... > And without devfs, we end up with a dozen different implementations of it under /proc. Or we end up with SCO Openserver-style device management. Or each device driver writer has to invent their own device management system for dynamic devices.
It doesn't _have_ to be Richard Gooch's Devfs but I have yet to hear a better idea, or see alternative running code for the general case.
-- Daniel Taylor Senior Test Engineer Digi International danielt@digi.com Open systems win.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |